IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Secret] AD Review of the proposed charter

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Sat, 30 April 2022 00:01 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: secret@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: secret@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82742C15E41A for <secret@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Apr 2022 17:01:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sandelman.ca
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sZL2gQPEXV_B for <secret@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Apr 2022 17:01:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E21AEC157B36 for <secret@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Apr 2022 17:01:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C0623926D; Fri, 29 Apr 2022 20:13:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id SF1IrLDC6wdk; Fri, 29 Apr 2022 20:13:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03FAB3926A; Fri, 29 Apr 2022 20:13:48 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=sandelman.ca; s=mail; t=1651277628; bh=2ZLwoOhuwD+ky/DxLT3XL7pEEELd3C8+eQVyR9iD9Y0=; h=From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=NdxarSiNuLH8cTUamlxal2h2eqdtaHbQRsoMzqKeltNnlv/eXY3V6ODLhkuRp+oJJ tQhyqAwAee1Zl4JyNju5mwJ6inzBjbLJfc10G6eAC/RBygiAs+vJycqTITFe66hnL2 j8y9KaBsYprusm07SF4q/00ae+i0DkKpT+MKs9q+1KbonwuwSNWp6XzfeFL5+zIzrg 9cg0zmIO5Yt83MyKCX6rm408qXjiXSZhVxrsRik4zS+cAZqRXh3YeTmCYiZ3jgsHV+ k1FfIvSwMhv+ikE/sJ/VGTX8ckQ7I4n7lvk+atmNMmOcDY8/uCWANPmM9fo+FgOxrI ef6rY+Hq3MYAQ==
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BE9448; Fri, 29 Apr 2022 20:00:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>, "secret@ietf.org" <secret@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <PH1P110MB1116CF8D2A885C4E90705ECCDCFC9@PH1P110MB1116.NAMP110.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
References: <PH1P110MB1116CF8D2A885C4E90705ECCDCFC9@PH1P110MB1116.NAMP110.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 27.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 20:00:57 -0400
Message-ID: <18806.1651276857@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/secret/iUoEUE6xazT5DXwlBeKlnv5UTHs>
Subject: Re: [Secret] AD Review of the proposed charter
X-BeenThere: secret@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34
Precedence: list
List-Id: Secure Credential Transfer <secret.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/secret>, <mailto:secret-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/secret/>
List-Post: <mailto:secret@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:secret-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secret>, <mailto:secret-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2022 00:01:09 -0000

Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org> wrote:
    > ** There is a strong signal, which I agree with, that "SECRET" should
    > not be the WG name.  My working understanding from past BOF
    > chair/proponent discussion is that TIGRESS ("Transfer dIGital
    > cREdentialS Securely") is the new proposed WG name.  I'm dropping it
    > here on the list to hear if there are strong objections.  I'd beg the
    > group not to bike-shedding here unless this name is major problem.

TIGRESS is good.
It's pretty much has no unwanted context attached to it.


--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email